CIA Admits In Hearing - Using News To Manipulate the USA

I think those of us who were born after 1980 are much more aware then those before us. It will be another 10+ years before my generation starts to find themselves in positions of power and when we do I hope we can truly make the necessary changes.

Take 9/11 for example, most people in my age group(early 30s and younger) reject the official story, also we reject the war on drugs, the high rate of incarceration, the (in)justice system, the bank/credit system, the Middle East wars, ect..

Maybe it is the internet and we have access to so much information and we are free to do our own research and draw our own conclusions. I feel like my parents generation is vulnerable to believe what the see on TV, or what the read, or what a person of power tells them. We just don't fall for the lies like the previous generations did.

We are not without weaknesses, too many of my peers can't even balance their budget and fall for the social media rat trap(Facebook!). However I do believe once my generation starts to find themselves elected into office, in executive positions at major corporations, and among other things on top of the military chain of command we will see change for the better of humanity.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

How am I supposed to vote out people from California? or New York? or Texas? You are failing to see my point, these guys voted in by their inattentive electorate effect EVERYONE. Not to mention my own electorate is inattentive. I would love more than anything to kick out Barbara Mikulski or Ben Cardin.

That's not an argument for term limits, that's an argument for Federalism and a very small decentralized federal government.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

So vote them out! Lol

Answer me this, if there was a national vote tomorrow to implement term limits in Congress, would you vote yes or no on it?

I've already said I don't support term limit legislation.

edit on 9-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You can't vote the crooks out when the elections are rigged.

I do believe they are, you might have two choices but both choices serve the same evil. The debates do nothing but create a phony divide over minor issues while major issues are ignored.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It is? I mean as a Libertarian that is fine with me, but I fail to see how what I posted is an argument for anything but term limits in Congress. If I'm not able to vote out some crook in California, then a term limit will kick him out eventually anyways. Keep injecting Congress with fresh blood.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It is? I mean as a Libertarian that is fine with me, but I fail to see how what I posted is an argument for anything but term limits in Congress. If I'm not able to vote out some crook in California, then a term limit will kick him out eventually anyways. Keep injecting Congress with fresh blood.

Do you know what Constitutional Federalism is? States govern themselves, central government stays out of the way. If the citizens in one state want gay marriage for example, and vote it it to law then it's binding in that state, and other states are not bound by that if they feel differently. And people can either move to that state if they support it or move out if they don't.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I know what it is, you must have missed the beginning of my post were I said that I'd be fine with that. However, I am not arguing for states' rights right now. You are twisting my argument into something that I haven't even brought up. My points are supportive of my position that we need term limits in Congress. In any case, you and I are WAY off topic in this thread, so I'm done arguing with you.

Here's a great article in Forbes Magazine from a journalists point of view regarding the governments manipulation over the media:

To combat these manipulations, we must change the incentives. If we want loyalty to the truth, we must be loyal to the people who provide us with it—whoever they are.

Forbes Magazine

Originally posted by Euphony
Here's a great article in Forbes Magazine from a journalists point of view regarding the governments manipulation over the media:

To combat these manipulations, we must change the incentives. If we want loyalty to the truth, we must be loyal to the people who provide us with it—whoever they are.

Forbes Magazine

Thank you, I enjoyed reading this.

I guess many of you are aware that I reported on CNN's dwindling market. I suspect because they don't report much real news anymore. All fluff and little stuff.... And I also reported on the arrival of Aljazeera America. Peraps I am putting too much stock into Aljazeera, but I am hoping that they will hold an immunity card to CIA propaganda. I truly wish they will be our beacon of light.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I know what it is, you must have missed the beginning of my post were I said that I'd be fine with that. However, I am not arguing for states' rights right now. You are twisting my argument into something that I haven't even brought up. My points are supportive of my position that we need term limits in Congress. In any case, you and I are WAY off topic in this thread, so I'm done arguing with you.

I didn't "twist" anything. I pointed out that the specific example you chose to support your argument was not supportive of term limit legislation, but is really an argument for small federal government and a return to Constitutional Federalism. You earlier said you were a Libertarian correct? That's the epitome of liberty, having the freedom to send a representative to congress that you are satisfied with without an arbitrary limit to your freedom to elect that person.

And I never was arguing with you.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, I am gonna argue with you. Wanna fight? You do have to admit that the longer someone sits in office, the more likely they will become corrupt and disillusioned. Not all of them though.. And what about the newbie enthusiasm? They want to change the world. Just imagine if we had a full congress of those go getters that still think the constitution is the "word" vs. an annoying inconvenience.

reply to post by elouina


I haven't been arguing that they DON'T become that way. My argument has been that there are already termimits called a ballot box.

RE: Term limits...

...they should be stricter. Don't let people sit in those seats too long, reduce the influences that steal our tax dollars.

There should be some political philosophy included in the high school curriculum. This would help ensure that the thoughts/words of our founders were understood to at least a rudimentary degree.

All judges should be elected. No unelected person should be allowed to create policy or law.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by elouina

 

I haven't been arguing that they DON'T become that way. My argument has been that there are already termimits called a ballot box.

Looks like I shall win this debate now... Ready? How many people blindly adore Obama, just because... If we didn't have term limits, you do realize that we would be looking at a third term with Obama.

Well, did I win, did I win?

"We must compel the governments of the GOYIM to take action in the direction favored by our widely conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly promoted by us through the means of that so-called "Great Power" - THE PRESS, WHICH, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY BE DISREGARDED, IS ALREADY ENTIRELY IN OUR HANDS."

-The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Well, here in 2013 - it ain't working.

Who believes anything the gov't says anymore? A third of the country? Maybe.

You can bet almost half of the country is really starting to believe that the gov't is the problem.

The government needs fixing and good. Rand Paul is pushing for term limitations again with a petition. I suppose this would be a start. Many young politicians are eager to do the right thing. But once they are exposed to all the temptations it is only a matter of time before they bite. Well, I would like to think not all of them. The term limitations would keep our representatives ideas fresh and their motives for the good of the people..

I think it is too late now.

People have woken up (little bit) because of the economic conditions. Otherwise nobody cared. Everybody was too happy with easy money, moral and social decadence.

Even now I see no political movement with any significant size that addresses the core problems facing America.

The rulers continue to rule as they have always done. It is status quo for them. There is no opposition to their sordid games.

People are running on emotions rather than wisdom. They are looking for scapegoats. Either it is Bush or Obama. They do not understand it is the entire political system that needs changing.

Originally posted by shanegm
"We must compel the governments of the GOYIM to take action in the direction favored by our widely conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly promoted by us through the means of that so-called "Great Power" - THE PRESS, WHICH, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY BE DISREGARDED, IS ALREADY ENTIRELY IN OUR HANDS."

-The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Um, I suppose you don't know that the Protocols have been debunked as a fraudulent literary work for over a century. I make that assumption because you quoted from it.

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by elouina

 

I haven't been arguing that they DON'T become that way. My argument has been that there are already termimits called a ballot box.

Looks like I shall win this debate now...

Ready? How many people blindly adore Obama, just because... If we didn't have term limits, you do realize that we would be looking at a third term with Obama.

Well, did I win, did I win? ;

No. My core principles aren't determined by who sits in the White House.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by elouina

 

I haven't been arguing that they DON'T become that way. My argument has been that there are already termimits called a ballot box.

Looks like I shall win this debate now...

Ready? How many people blindly adore Obama, just because... If we didn't have term limits, you do realize that we would be looking at a third term with Obama.

Well, did I win, did I win? ;

No. My core principles aren't determined by who sits in the White House.

Obama or any president... Have you ever watched Brigadoon? In this movie, a village that is wholesome in every way is hidden away only to waken one day every hundred years so that it is unaffected by the evil of that period in time. To be affected by any presidents policies for too long can have a similar effect.

Plus the longer a president is in office, the more their control and power grows.

And people like familiarity even if it is not best for them. Why do you think it is nearly impossible to win against an incumbent? In fact many voters can be fearful of change.

Add to this that there are morons out there that vote straight down the party lines. This may be the primary and most important reason that our representatives don't get kicked out of office when they are past their freshness date. If you live in a democratic city, say for example, the incumbent is a democrat and the new face is a republican. What do you think happens? Mr democrat dies of old age in his seat on capital hill..

I feel that any and all offices should have term limitations for the above reasons.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Unfortunately, game theory shows that it's quite easy to manipulate our current congressional elections. That's why term limits are needed, and that's why members of congress are rarely voted out even in recent times despite having an approval rating of between 2 and 20% for the past decade. They figured out that if they vote money to the district they represent, they'll get voted back in, this is typically done with earmarks. On national issues though they're totally dysfunctional and have no incentive to work the issues out because they'll be reelected at best, or at worst turn into lobbyists.

Each and every one of us has a stake in what more than just our specific representatives in congress are doing, but we can only vote on a couple of them. When the few we can vote for bribe the local electorate, they find their way back into office. You can see the effect of this nationally. Almost everyone regardless of political affiliation is upset with congress, yet the majority in each district is happy with their guy. Term limits are the only way to fix this.

reply to post by elouina


please watch both these videos....





With media bias today ...."People should get the news from several sources and then cross them by and get their own final conclusion"